The other night, after a made basket, an offensive player went out of bounds under the basket to avoid congestion in the lane and came back in bounds on the other side of the lane. Another player for the offensive team still had the ball out of bounds to in-bound the ball. The official called a violation. Why?

There was no contact between the player trying to get open and the player in-bounding the ball nor with the ball.

Rule change this year, along with being a point of emphasis. If, in the opinion of the official, the player went out of bounds to gain an advantage, a violation must be called immediately. The penalty used to be a technical foul and was rarely, if ever, called. Without seeing the play, going OOB to "avoid congestion in the lane after a basket" could be construed as gaining (or trying to gain) an advantage, particularly if the inbounds pass came to that player. It sounds as if the call was correct.

Actually the rule change for this year was this 9-3-2- A player shall not leave the floor for an unauthorized reason. While you are correct that this infraction usually results in an advantage being gained the correct rule terminology is "unauthorized reason" regardless of advantage gained or not. The throw in after made basket it one of the times that say A1 is the thrower,A2-A5 is authorized to be oob's along the end line. Also, I do not believe this is a POE this year.

Actually the rule change for this year was this 9-3-2- A player shall not leave the floor for an unauthorized reason. While you are correct that this infraction usually results in an advantage being gained the correct rule terminology is "unauthorized reason" regardless of advantage gained or not. The throw in after made basket it one of the times that say A1 is the thrower,A2-A5 is authorized to be oob's along the end line. Also, I do not believe this is a POE this year.

I wrote that without the benefit of looking in the rule book to quote the rule. The net effect is the same. The POE is they want the violation called... period. It was emphasized, among other places, at the clinic in Hot Springs in October.

Rulesman, Are you saying that the player who ran oob's left the court for an unauthorized reason?

In the play that was described, without the benefit of seeing it, yes, it could very well have been a violation.

The way I read the question, the player is on one side of the court and is attempting to get free to catch the throw in and can't. The defense has him covered up. The lane is jammed up, so he runs out of bounds under the basket to get around the traffic so the thrower-in can get him the ball. That's a violation.

Just so it is clear, there was no inbound pass to the player and both the offensive and defensive player were side by side. So both were out of bounds on the play. I still don't get it. I mean the offensive player could step out of bounds and receive a pass from the 1st player and inbound it legally (at least that use to be legal) so why would stepping out of bounds and back inbounds be a violation?

Just so it is clear, there was no inbound pass to the player and both the offensive and defensive player were side by side. So both were out of bounds on the play. I still don't get it. I mean the offensive player could step out of bounds and receive a pass from the 1st player and inbound it legally (at least that use to be legal) so why would stepping out of bounds and back inbounds be a violation?

You have 2 different situations described here:

1) "...both the offensive and defensive player were side by side. So both were out of bounds."

OK, you have a basket by Team A. A1 and B1 are out of bounds. Help me understand the play? This is different from what you first asked in the original question.

2) "...the offensive player could step out of bounds and receive a pass from the 1st player and inbound it legally..."

I'm assuming the 2 players referred to are on the same team. If you are talking about B1 taking the ball out after a basket by Team A, then throwing it to B2 who is also out of bounds so B2 can make the throw in, yes that is legal. That has not changed.

The defender cant be oob's. Any of the throwers 4 teammates are authorized to be oob's in this situation. Rulesman, can you reference a rule that says that a teammate of the thrower cant be oob's in this situation and the re-enter the court inbounds?

The defender cant be oob's. Any of the throwers 4 teammates are authorized to be oob's in this situation. Rulesman, can you reference a rule that says that a teammate of the thrower cant be oob's in this situation and the re-enter the court inbounds?

Correct... the defender cannot be OOB. Equally correct... any of the thrower's teammates can be OOB in this situation, however, 9-3-2 states a player cannot leave the court for an unauthorized reason.

The Case Book cites a play that typically occurs where a player trying to avoid a baseline screen runs around the screen by leaving the court under the basket. This applies equally to the offense and defense, and COULD apply in this situation. I emphasize COULD, because it is strictly a judgment call. A2 could legally leave the court to receive a pass from A1 (who is OOB with the ball after a basket by B) and make the throw in to A3, but could not legally leave the court to avoid a defensive screen and come back in to immediately receive the inbounds pass. To do so would be gaining an unfair advantage. Keeping this from happening is within the spirit and intent of 9-3-2.

The casebook play on page 4 :comments on the 95-06 revisions; says...the violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. Not when the player re-enters the court. Once again, any of the throwers teammates are authorized to be oob's. A2 could legally leave the court and NOT receive a pass from A1 who decided to throw in to A3. This is a good discussion, ill keep thinking on this and see if anything else pops up.

The casebook play on page 4 :comments on the 95-06 revisions; says...the violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. Not when the player re-enters the court. Once again, any of the throwers teammates are authorized to be oob's. A2 could legally leave the court and NOT receive a pass from A1 who decided to throw in to A3. This is a good discussion, ill keep thinking on this and see if anything else pops up.

Yes, the violation is supposed to be called when the player leaves the court, as opposed to when he returns. In this case, we have (if you will) an apparent exception to the rule. You really need to let the situation develop. Calling the violation too soon would be an injustice to Team A since he does have a right, as you cite, to be there. Then again, the example I gave earlier is one time he shouldn't be OOB. The administering official really needs to see what A2 is doing/or going to do while OOB before passing judgement. Agreed?

I agree with you that this play seems like it should be a violation. I just would like to have some more light shed on it from a rules standpoint. Maybe Brodell or Struckhoff can could shed some light on this for us. Got anymore strange scenarios? I love this stuff

This actually happened at the game which is why I was puzzled. Maybe the official got it correct. I was not aware of the rule (is it a new one?) that says a player can not leave the court to gain an advantage.

Just to recap:

A1 was set to inbound the ball. A2 and D1 were on the opposite side of the goal from where A1 was standing. Both A2 and D1 left the court to avoid the players in the lane (both offensive and Defensive players) and both came back inbounds close to where A1 was standing. D1 was obviously trying to prevent the inbounds to A2 and chased him around the lane congestion. The official called a violation on A2. The ball had not yet been inbounded but it was not a 5 second call.

Tim, A violation should have been called as soon as the defender went oob's and Team A should have had another throw in with the ability to run the endline.

But the official awarded possession to the defending team -- a turnover against the inbounding team.

But if the offensive player A2 is not suppose to go out of bounds in an effort to lose the defender (as I understand the first answer) than the call would be correct?

This is "news" to me as a rule but I am just a fan and not a Coach or official. I'm just glad for some clarification

Is it still legal, when the in-bounder has the ability to run the baseline, to have an alternate player go out of bounds, receive the pass as long as the 5 seconds is not violated? This play was used frequently in the past and I am unaware of any changes. In other words, the in-bounder throws the length of the baseline to another individual out of bounds, steps inbounds and receives the pass, all within the 5 seconds allotted. If so, then the official completely blew the call as he could not have known if they were running this "play" or not. Again, they might have changed the rule to deal with the mass incompetence with high school officials today, i.e, no basket allowed if a charge is called, 3 point backcourt rule, etc.

The official got the call correct. I simply was unaware of the rule saying the player could not leave the court to avoid a screen which is what the player did. I talked to the officila involved. The lateness of the whistle was just the time needed to access the "purpose" of the player going out of bounds. Legally he could have went out to receive a pass and then throw the ball inbounds. But in this case he left the court to avoid a baseline "tangle" and lose the defender.

I simply wasn't aware it was a violation. You see NBA players do it all of the time (ex. RIP). Other officials had explained to me at Region 8 tournament that previously the call was a technical and not just a turnover so officials were reluctant to call it. This year it is a turnover and not a technical.

Actually he missed the call when he didnt blow his whistle as soon as the defender stepped oob's. The call based on intent of the offensive player who is authorized to be oob's is a reach, the defender has zero rights to break that plane or be oob's.

Logged

mudturtle

So what you are saying is that the offensive player may leave the court legally in this situation, depending on what he does while he is out of bounds, but if the defender steps out, play stops immediately, no matter the intention. Makes sense